I'm a lot less dangerous having a phone to my ear for 30 seconds spending 15 second fiddling around
it's also a lot safer than text messaging while driving, which, from what i hear (and can guess), is a popular alternative.
Walter_E_Wallis
· 4 years ago
San Jose Airport has a cell phone lot, where you can wait until your party is at the curb and calls you instead of driving in circles. I had about 6 circles at SFO last night because of their totally insensitive traffic control.
James Gattuso
· 4 years ago
Well, now I know how to stir controversy on TLF!
I agree completely with Tim that context matters. There are certainly times when cell phone use is safer and times when its less safe. Driving on an empty highway is certainly safer than driving in rush hour traffic changing lanes. This need not be an all or nothing proposition though -- I hope I didn't imply it was. Law can be written in all sorts of ways. My point is that -- where safety is at issue -- restrictions can make sense.
Does this mean we have to ban all sorts of other activities? Not necessarily. Tim's right -- people do all sorts of distracting things while driving -- some can't be controlled (yelling at kids, perhaps), some are less dangerous, some happen rarely. Again, we don't have to have an all-or-nothing approach here. It's like saying you can't put up a stop sign on a dangerous intersection unless you also put signs up at all dangerous intersections at the same time.
Will bans be enforceable? After seat belt laws (which I strongly opposed) were enacted, usage did go up substantially. I'm frankly not sure though whether the increase was because of the laws or not. But, again, if cell phone use presents a real risk to other drivers, why shouldn't it be restricted, even if you don't catch most violators? There's lots of things you can do that are legitimately banned, which you'll probably get away with.
I want to make clear that I'm not endorsing an open door to indiscriminate regulation here. But if cell phone usage by drivers puts other drivers at substantial risk, I see no free-market principle that says it can't be restricted. In fact, protecting individuals from injury from others is exactly what government is supposed to do. (As opposed the the zillions of things it does, but shouldn't). In that sense, it IS the sort of thing the police should be worried about.
Of course, now I'll be branded forever as the pro-regulation TLFer... :)
eee_eff
· 4 years ago
Well: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "First of all, as one of his commenters point out, cell phones are not the only distracting thing in the car. They're probably not even the most distracting." ---> The study seemed quite factual, it should be repeated to have its conclusions verified, but you're grasping at straws here, because there is obviously no way to regulate yelling, getting distracted by the radio, etc. without invading privacy. You are in public view, and the Police can see you talking. I have always believed, after knowing too many killed in accidents that because of the risks and dangers involved, driving is privilege, not a right. As long as the compelling interest of safety is present, the state has every right (even a duty I would say) to regulate this. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Secondly, context matters."---->Yes it does, and that can be taken into account by the Judge, when sentencing. That's called judicial discretion. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Thirdly, is that really the best use of police resources? Even if the study is right, and cell phone use is killing people,...."----> I can't think of a better use of police resources "... I mean, really, has mandatory seat belt laws increased seatbelt use?" Duh!~Yes it has!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Finally, the study found that handsfree phones are just as distracting as normal phones. I don't find this surprising at all. DC has a cell phone ban, and so I tried to use my hands free kit as often as possible. When my phone rings, I have to fish my phone out of my pocket, fish the handsfree kit out of the ash tray, plug the receiver into the phone, put the reciever into my ear (sometimes it falls out and I have to do it again) and then find a place to set the phone for the duration of the call...." ----->Please be careful! The Darwin award is not a good one to get, but you're striving, apparently...
enigma_foundry
Lance Jonn Romanoff
· 4 years ago
If I'm zipping along in the left lane of an almost-empty freeway, being on my cell phone poses pretty minimal risk of accident.
One wonders why you'd be in the passing lane on an "almost-empty" freeway.
Otherwise, valid points made.
Meduza
· 3 years ago
icone de la vierge a l enfant , vierge chatte , personnalite signe de la vierge
Basty
· 3 years ago
Free video amateur, is always learned of the new ways...!!!!!!
Chalchiuhtlicue
· 3 years ago
The best free sex for adults...The last galleries of photos and videos raised to the tgp, interesting and curious linkage of sex, the last erotic histories...
All Comments
it's also a lot safer than text messaging while driving, which, from what i hear (and can guess), is a popular alternative.
I had about 6 circles at SFO last night because of their totally insensitive traffic control.
I agree completely with Tim that context matters. There are certainly times when cell phone use is safer and times when its less safe. Driving on an empty highway is certainly safer than driving in rush hour traffic changing lanes. This need not be an all or nothing proposition though -- I hope I didn't imply it was. Law can be written in all sorts of ways. My point is that -- where safety is at issue -- restrictions can make sense.
Does this mean we have to ban all sorts of other activities? Not necessarily. Tim's right -- people do all sorts of distracting things while driving -- some can't be controlled (yelling at kids, perhaps), some are less dangerous, some happen rarely. Again, we don't have to have an all-or-nothing approach here. It's like saying you can't put up a stop sign on a dangerous intersection unless you also put signs up at all dangerous intersections at the same time.
Will bans be enforceable? After seat belt laws (which I strongly opposed) were enacted, usage did go up substantially. I'm frankly not sure though whether the increase was because of the laws or not. But, again, if cell phone use presents a real risk to other drivers, why shouldn't it be restricted, even if you don't catch most violators? There's lots of things you can do that are legitimately banned, which you'll probably get away with.
I want to make clear that I'm not endorsing an open door to indiscriminate regulation here. But if cell phone usage by drivers puts other drivers at substantial risk, I see no free-market principle that says it can't be restricted. In fact, protecting individuals from injury from others is exactly what government is supposed to do. (As opposed the the zillions of things it does, but shouldn't). In that sense, it IS the sort of thing the police should be worried about.
Of course, now I'll be branded forever as the pro-regulation TLFer... :)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"First of all, as one of his commenters point out, cell phones are not the only distracting thing in the car. They're probably not even the most distracting." ---> The study seemed quite factual, it should be repeated to have its conclusions verified, but you're grasping at straws here, because there is obviously no way to regulate yelling, getting distracted by the radio, etc. without invading privacy. You are in public view, and the Police can see you talking. I have always believed, after knowing too many killed in accidents that because of the risks and dangers involved, driving is privilege, not a right. As long as the compelling interest of safety is present, the state has every right (even a duty I would say) to regulate this.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Secondly, context matters."---->Yes it does, and that can be taken into account by the Judge, when sentencing. That's called judicial discretion.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Thirdly, is that really the best use of police resources? Even if the study is right, and cell phone use is killing people,...."----> I can't think of a better use of police resources "... I mean, really, has mandatory seat belt laws increased seatbelt use?" Duh!~Yes it has!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Finally, the study found that handsfree phones are just as distracting as normal phones. I don't find this surprising at all. DC has a cell phone ban, and so I tried to use my hands free kit as often as possible. When my phone rings, I have to fish my phone out of my pocket, fish the handsfree kit out of the ash tray, plug the receiver into the phone, put the reciever into my ear (sometimes it falls out and I have to do it again) and then find a place to set the phone for the duration of the call...." ----->Please be careful! The Darwin award is not a good one to get, but you're striving, apparently...
enigma_foundry
One wonders why you'd be in the passing lane on an "almost-empty" freeway.
Otherwise, valid points made.